[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Xenotime-(Gd) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not meeting Notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetimefortheinternet (talk • contribs)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 27. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 22:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Personally, I find the scarcity of gadolinium minerals, of which this is only the third, an interesting point. I must admit, for the type specimens still showing considerable incorporations of yttrium (Xenotime-(Y)), the actual mineral may appear rather vague. I would wish for someone more versed in geology, on how worthwhile the apparent trend towards definition of endpoint members is actually seen in the research community. Overall, our handling of these particular species of minerals are inconstent. We have quite a few existing articles of species dominated by a specific element, in other cases, they only redirect to the non-specified base name (see Xenotime-(Y)), in the case of Monazite both, an unspecified article exists along most fo the more diligently defined species. In my opinion, that inconsistency should eventually be discussed in the geology project, though. --Tyroxin (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: The description of this mineral has only been published this year (2024), so as yet there are no independent extra publications. This could be merged into "xenotime", or become part of a future gadolinium phosphate article. So we should attempt to keep the content via merger. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)